God Will Be My Judge

Daily Kos 'The Evil Puppeteer'

 

What are we supposed to do when we hear Daily Kos sullying Tony Blair when completing the distortion begun in this article published by The Independent today, which reports that:

Tony Blair has proclaimed that God will judge whether he was right to send British troops to Iraq, echoing statements from his ally George Bush.

Contradicting warnings from advisers not to mix politics and religion, the Prime Minister said that his interest in politics sprang from his Christianity and its "values and philosophy" had guided him in public life.

And what does the chief marketing officer of John Kerry's campaign have to say, linking to the identical article?

Tony Blair proclaims God led him to invade Iraq.

Is it my turn now to say: "Lies, lies, lies"? Finally it turns into "blasphemy"

The Daily Kos carries on with the mud slinging, taking a wider shot:

Too much wingnuttery for one day. Via Atrios, we learn Missouri is considering a bill making Christianity the state's official religion. Mississippi is set to follow in South Dakota's footsteps and ban almost all abortions.
[The abovementioned Tony Blair comment]
In Kentucky, state legislators are asked to go on record as to whether they've "accepted Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior."  Separation of church and what again?

You are a poor excuse for a blogger Markos, and should be joining the ranks of The New York and LA Times, as a prime story spinner.

Some good blogging from my friend Tom Maguire: "God Lied, People Died", quoting amongst others the NYT who take the Blair criticism to a higher level.

Michelle Malkin notices our deconstruction of the new demagoguery.

The BBC have a transcript from the Blair - Parkinson interview. scheduled to be aired tonight.

Ann Althouse as usual cuts to the chase: "Worrying about Blair's slight reference to religious belief shows either an aversion to religion or the usual pointless grasping for political arguments."

As I have said before the left hates the President more than it fears al-Qaeda, or loves liberty, and when it comes to the UK's Prime Minister Tony Blair, he may be Labour, but supporting President Bush makes him an immediate enemy.

FromThe Daily Kos:

The fact that the Republicans, like All Things Beautiful, have gotten to the point where they get hysterical at the slightest sign of dissent shows how desperate they have become. The fact that Tony Blair claims that he has a hotline to God shows how desperate and insecure he and the rest of the Bush apologists have become as the failure of the War in Iraq is becoming more and more obvious to all.

The above was also cross posted at TPM Cafe.

Another leftie publication [ahem, rightie publication] in the UK, The Spectator, just like Kos, had linked Tony Blair, Christianity and abortion. It seems to be the latest leftie trend, but as all trends, it started some years ago in the UK:

The great religious figures of our age feel a repugnance for this war because they understand that at the heart of Christianity is a set of moral absolutes or rules: in the context of Iraq the most relevant of these is the biblical injunction ‘Thou shalt not kill.’ Tony Blair’s readiness to propound fresh doctrines of his own has been a striking feature of his premiership in all sorts of areas. He has occasionally brooded in public about the balance between natural law and utilitarianism. On two occasions he has even claimed that he is more attracted to the stern and immutable imperatives laid down by natural law than to clumsy calculations about the greatest good of the greatest number. But natural law comes down heavily against this war in Iraq, just as it does against abortion.

Now my question is: "Why does the left and it's MSM not hold Islam to the same standards, instead of pandering to it, at the peril of it's own liberty? "

According to the precepts of natural law, the humility and discipline of religion express a wisdom that is deeper than individual men and women can readily understand.These are boundaries which, as Mr Blair may be about to discover, are impertinent to transgress.

Evidently the Islamapologists feel this impertinence does not extend to the daily atrocities committed by Muslims in the name of Islam.

Now we are not even allowed to mention God for fear of antagonizing the Arab world:

Explaining how he managed to live with the decision to go to war in Iraq, Mr Blair replied: "If you have faith about these things then you realise that judgement is made by other people. If you believe in God,it's made by God as well." His remarks, made in an interview to be shown on ITV's Parkinson show tonight, invite comparison with President Bush, a born-again Christian, who has made a virtue of bringing religion into politics. But they also carry the risk of inflaming opinion in the Arab world, where the term "crusader" is commonly used to condemn Christian leaders who meddle in the Middle East.

The inuendo simply never ends. And finally from the person who actually utters the words attributed to Prime Minister Blair:

Roger Bacon, who has been trying unsuccessfully to meet Tony Blair since his son, Major Matthew Bacon, 34, was killed in Iraq, said last night: "This would explain why he won't see the parents. How can he speak to us when God told him to send the troops out to Iraq so our sons could be killed?"

Linked to Wizbang, Mudville Gazette, Stop the ACLU, Right Wing Nation,

Comments

[K T Cat]

I'm a little late to this party, but let me tell you that everything Kos and Atrios suggested is indeed coming to pass. The Feline Theocracy is growing day by day and soon you will all be working in the tuna mines!

Muuuhahahahaha!

Make sure you hit the link and go back to the original Theocracy post for the explanation.

[Otto Foust]

Jesus Christ is the Lord of Salvation, but, He is also the Judge of the world, and it is about to be judged, as for Iraq; read Jeremiah ch, 50-51 where you can read His judgement concerning the destruction of Iraq, For, lo, I will raise and cause to come up against Babylon (Iraq) a assembly of great nations from the North country: and they will set themselves in array against her, from here she shall be taken: their arrows (guided missles) shall be as of a mighty expert man; none shall return in vain. Jer. 50: 9. Otto Foust

[David]

Semanticleo,

"Don't be quite so smug about education when yours is so clearly lacking any real understanding on the subject."

*yawn*

So, what you are asserting is that either

1.) You DO know the scriptures and choose to deliberately misrepresent what they say

or

2.) you have a surface aquiantance but are too DISeducated to understand them?

Which is it, semanticleo? (Not that I'm all that interested in your answer, as your comments so far seem to reinforce an impression that you are simply being disingenuous.)

[RL]

caedmonscall.com

The Good God of the Christian Bible inhabits the praises of His people.

Maybe this partly explains why the evidential, historic, and Biblical Christian Faith is full of so many joyful,
uplifting, and wonderful songs.

: )

[Photon]

Christ's life on Earth was an example of how perfect humans behave, while wading through the Temple and turning over tables. By example He demonstrated righteous indignation, and He reiterated our obligations for the exacting of Justice under Law, hence the warning that the Magistrate's soldiers do not bear the sword in vain. Christ found great value in the recognition by a thief that executions are morally wrong only if Justice is miscarried, and He did not object to the then-occurring execution of the thief himself. Neither did the thief, whose respect for Justice gained him Heaven. Christ refused to condemn soldiers, telling them only to be content with their wages, and He certainly knew what soldiers did for a living.

We are each born as an evil person into an evil world, but once we accept the personal change that is in Christ, we will use our free will to resist evil either aggressively, or passively. To resist not at all makes no sense of the indwelling of Christ. Resisting evil reflects love for the victims and a solidarity with Justice, and whether, in our actions, we are willing to stand the condemnations of those whose consciences are oxymoronically large enough to disregard the world's victims entirely.

[MD]

If one takes "turn the other cheek" to be a political and communal injunction, and not a personal spiritual guide, then the ethic of the New Testament becomes a communal suicide pact.

Yet, Christ said we should live, and live abundantly.

[Semanticleo]

Photon;

His life on earth was an example of how humans should behave. He has a right to return
on the wings of the archangel Michael to exact justice, we do not.

[Photon]

The consistency of the life of Christ includes His life in Eternity. As He is unchanging, we therefore can't consider just His earthly ministry, we also have to consider His promise upon His return to annhilate the armies of the world which will gather against Him. Talk about expedient violence.

[Semanticleo]

Photon;

Free will is the only condition upon which love may genuinely exist. Exercise your will
as you may.

Peter, as I have said, is the likely sword wielder, and one the the most beloved of Christ's disciples.

Yet when Jesus was arrested, he led in fear for his life and denied knowing him three times as prophesied by Jesus. Matt 26:34, 69-75. Peter often had problems with Faith and has been described as impulsive.

The sword was a common sight in that world and was, it is speculated, used to ward off wild animals.

But believe what you will, think about the consistency of the life of Christ and dovetail
that with expedient violence.

[Photon]

To Semanticleo:

If Christ was antagonistic to the use of personal weapons, and His Apostles had them at the Garden of Gesthemane, then for how long had they had them? During Christ's whole Ministry? Why did Christ tell His Apostle to put the sword back in its place (the sheath)instead of running down and selling it to the sword buy-back program? As these guys were fishermen and not professional soldiers, they were probably not skilled swordsmen, and it was dark as well: the taking off of the ear was probably by accident, the aiming point being more likely the middle of the head. I wouldn't even trust an excellent swordsman for ear-slicing precision in the dark. The Apostle, who had been in the company of Christ for three years, also felt comfortable with unholstering his sidearm and going for broke in the very presence of Christ. Was he pacifism's poorest learner, or was Christ pacifism's poorest teacher? As you claim to know Scripture, you also know that Christ once asked His Apostles how many swords they had, and they replied that they had two, to which Christ answered that it was enough. The question is, enough for what? Christ and G-d are One, and are we expected to believe that no one got hurt in Noah's flood? Scriptures are pretty plain...

[Semanticleo]

John Lane;

The Covenant God made with Israel was both fulfilled, and superceded by the sacrifice
of the true Passover Lamb, Jesus Christ.

The law was designed to show Israel that they could not find redemption through their
attempts to become righteous through works outlined by the Law. The Law was an impossible objective for imperfect men. Jeus removed the onus of sin.

If you care to discuss the Old Testament and God's view of men killing men, you need only see how He forbad his beloved King David from building his Temple. He gave that duty to his son, Solomon, because his hands were not stained with human blood.

[John Lane]

All of this debate is based on a fallacious interpretation of Scripture that has taken the church in general by storm. The commandment "You shall not kill" would be more accurately interpreted from the ancient Hebrew, "You shall not murder." Killing is an ugly but necessary and even God-approved act of warfare; otherwise, we might as well throw the Bible out the window because, after giving this commandment about not killing, God then leads the Israelites into their chosen land, killing thousands of people in their way.
Why can't people take two seconds and think this one through? Even pastors today twist this commandment to fit their agenda. May God bless Bush, Blair, and the soldiers in Iraq!

[Lonetown]

It strikes me as interesting, as an aside, that the British version of Cindy Sheehan is a male.

First its new to me that the left is running these tactics in parallel.

I also think it says the British public is percieved as more feminized than the American public by the PR flaks and stinktanks that dream up this stuff. Or maybe Murtha was the daddy figure they picked to lecture us?

[RL]

I believe that Augustine's just-war theory is right.

"There is no pillow so soft as a clear conscience." French Proverb

[slowtrain]

The Errant Doctrine of Appeasement

Those who seek to take advantage of the scriptures, those who seek to take advantage of Christians, and those who lack proper contextual understanding of the scriptures, have frequently taken the scriptures out of context. Every thing Jesus said was said in context, his parables were spoken in context, often to illustrate specific subjects or with respect to specific issues.

Perhaps, no passage of scripture has been more misunderstood than Mat 5: 39-41. Christians have been subjected to untold abuse on account of this passage through the ages. But let us not forget that even Satan quoted the scripture out of context in attempts to take advantage of Jesus’ situation and ultimately take advantage of Jesus. Many people have dubiously taken the admonition in Mat 5: 39-41 to imply that a Christian is required to turn the other cheek for as long as someone desires to smite them on the cheek. For example, if I slapped you on one cheek, you would turn the other cheek to be slapped also, then the former, then the latter, then former, then the latter, for as long as I desire to slap you.

Any reasonable person knows that was not what Jesus meant. In fact, what Jesus said was “but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.” (Mat 5: 39b) The NIV has it as “If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” Jesus did not say “whosoever shall smite thee on one check, turn the other also.”

Clearly, the specific reference to the right cheek in his statement implies a point of reference or bearing, implying a limitation or an expectation of a limit. The right cheek and the “other” is a set that makes a unit, to the extent that the face has two cheeks. The expected limitation in Jesus admonition in this passage of Scripture is further affirmed in verse 40, with regards to another set objects that make a unit—“thy coat and thy cloak”. In those days a complete set of clothing was comprised of coat and cloak.

Intrinsically, Jesus’ statement in Mat 5:39-41, implied limitations, both in what we can do and what is expected of us. Surely, his statement does not also apply in circumstances such as, if some pagans want to sacrifice your virgin daughter to their idol god, you should also give them your son or all your children. If that is unreasonable to you then so also is the idea that Christians should infinitely turn the other cheek to be slapped on for the pleasure of whoever wishes to slap them.

Romans 12:18 clarifies and puts Mat 5:39-41 in proper context, it says “If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men” (KJV). So also is Mat 19:19, “Thou shall love thy neighbor as thyself (KJV). The expected limitations of the injunction of pacifism are very clear.

[Semanticleo]

RL;

I had not read the Chesterton quote.

Very apt, and most perceptive

[Semanticleo]

nXnw

"I challenge anyone to quote scripture which speaks of a sword in any sense but spiritual." [SEMANTICLEO QUOTE]

As long as your conscience is clear...........

[North by Northwest]

In their theology, one is either destroyed or enslaved

Yes, that is the bigger picture, which is reinforced on a daily basis by War of Words and Words of War. This makes the struggle so protracted. The indoctrination is relentless and has been for decades.

What makes the ignorance of so many in the West especially frustrating is their notion of popularity contests; their conviction that if only one had left Iraq alone, we'd all be loved and respected. If only Israel hadn't been able to defend itself in the sixties and allowed itself to be overrun--I have yet to receive a straight answer what in their opinion would have happened to innocent Israeli civilians, should Israel have failed in those crucial years; references to the horrific fates endured by Christians in Lebanon throughout the 60ies, 70ies and 80ies are indignantly waved off.

Wounded pride lies at the heart of the hatred in the Middle East. Massively inflated Egos stand in the way of progress. Arabs are accustomed to their own superiority without the slightest sense of merit.

Compare the Arabs sense of absolute entitlement with the fiercely ambitious Japanese mentality. Both immensely proud; both consider saving face as the highest priority. Yet how stark the contrast with which the Japanese have overcome the worst, most humiliating defeat known in modern history. All because of their collective ability to recognize the ingredients of their worst enemy's superiority and their subsequent collective acumen to emulated and perfect those very same ingredients. What is Japan. A largely uninhabitable Island, virtually no natural resources and one giant radioactive scar. Where could the Middle East be today with its immense resources, were it for a different mentality.

Why was the US already the deeply reviled great big Satan prior to all of our liberal friends' favorite if-only-our-war-mongering-imperialistic-tyrannical-leaders-had-not-done-these offenses? Is it possible, that our liberal friends subconsciously feel a much greater affinity to the Arab's inflated sense of entitlement than they are consciously willing or able to detect?

Is it possible that the hatred amongst our midst has been caused by years and years of growing disillusionment over unmet expectations of entitlement? And that as a result of which any invitation to heap blame on those in power is so much more welcome because it serves as a urgently needed therapeutic valve? That rational thought is not the prime consideration nor motivator? That any promise of superiority, preferably moral as it is cheapest, is like manna from heaven, and forthwith defended at all costs for it serves as an anaesthetic against the dull ache caused by the sense of inadequacy and powerlessness in the face of day-to-day challenges and hardships?

These are some of the questions our liberal friends ought to consider when they next brush off the Arab's deeply rooted hatred towards all of us; before they next succumb to the convenient short-term cause-effect blame-game.

[Dan]

Re. "Now my question is: 'Why does the left and it's MSM not hold Islam to the same standards, instead of pandering to it, at the peril of it's own liberty?'": The Prime Minister of the U.K., George W. Bush's "number-one ally" in the "war on terror", shouldn't be held to any higher standard of conduct than militant religious zealots are held to? In what way does the expection that Tony Blair be held to account for his complicity in the Iraq Attaq equate to "pandering to Islam"?

[David Foster]

Anyone who wants to argue against the war in Iraq based on Christian pacifism should bear in mind that such pacifism would be context-insensitive. It would ban the naval gunfire used in support of the D-Day landings equally with the bombs used in support of the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

If you want to be context-sensitive, then you need to get beyond absolutist statements and get into what theologians would call prudential considerations.

[Peter]

That pacifism would have surprised Jesus. After all He commanded His disciples to sell their second cloaks to buy swords for a journey.

[joel]

The Commandment states, "Thou shall not murder." Christ reiterates this Himself in the New Testament.

This is infinitely different from "Thou shall not kill" which would imply that even police officers are immoral by virtue of taking on their profession. The wide-spread use of this last misrepresentation suggests that Christianity itself is under attack by deceivers as well as unbelievers.

Jesus is the Prince of Peace and will bring justice to the world. World peace will follow. Peace in our time made by us is a figment of our utopian imagination and that fantasy is at the heart of the entire secular humanist mass movement. A fantasy ideal that is continuously manipulated by enemies of the US and Israel as well as demagogic and amoral politicians in this country. It is willful and foolish.

[RL]

Semanticleo,

The meaning of the Scripture is the Scripture, and one should never take a text out of its context. There is only one correct interpretation to the important and relevant passage of Romans Chapter 13, in question. I have personally found the usage of
a solid and sound study Bible, such as the Reformation Study Bible (reformationstudybible.com), to be a valuable resource in my times of personal study of the Holy Scritpures.

"Truth is so obscure in these times and falsehood so established, that unless we love the truth, we cannot know it." Blaise Pascal

"Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried." G.K. Chesterton

Hebrews 11:1
Romans 10:17

Biblegateway.com
Bibleonstage.org

: )

[Alexandra]

With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own.

John Kennedy - January 20, 1961

[Semanticleo]

David;

Romans 13 is the reinforcement for Mark 12:17 where Jesus answers the trick question of the hypocritical religious leaders of his day, with "render unto Caesar, the things that are Caesar's". The principle that Christians should obey the laws of the land in which they reside is at the heart of both scriptures.

The difference between the context of those entries is that such obeyance is to be honored only so long as human law does not conflict with God's. A key example is the opposition to followers of Christ preaching in his name as commanded by him. Such opposition often comes from governmental sources. Matthew chapter 10 in toto, but specifically;

Verse 16-23--Does he counsel his followers to accede to the authorities? "Be on your
guard against men; for they will deliver you up to local courts.

An earlier commenter referred to the use of the word 'sword' to indicate a suggestion
that violence might be necessary.

I challenge anyone to quote scripture which speaks of a sword in any sense but spiritual.

The most definitive statement made by Jesus on that subject is at Matt 26:52 when Jesus is approached by Roman soldiers and one slave reaches for Jesus to arrest him and one of the disciples(believed to be Peter)lops off the servants ear. Jesus heals the man's ear and proclaims "Put that sword in it's place. For he who lives by the sword shall die
by the sword"

Don't be quite so smug about education when yours is so clearly lacking any real understanding on the subject.

[onlineanalyst]

Interestingly enough, neither Blair nor Bush has indicated at any time that his purpose as a national leader is to convert anyone to Christianity. On the other hand, the Muslims have made their purpose of re-establishing the Caliphate (and referring to Christians in their environs as "crusaders")abundantly clear. In their theology, one is either destroyed or enslaved.

[photoncourier.blogspot.com]

Re the "Christians must be pacifists" argument: I often see a Mercedes/BMW/whatever with a bumper sticker asking "Who would Jesus bomb?" Well, I'm not a Christian, but I think I understand the religion well enough to respond.

Jesus probably wouldn't bomb *anybody* because he stated that "my kingdom is not of this world." For the same reason, he wouldn't worry about making Senior Partner at the law firm, or getting tenure at the university. Yet the possessor of the Mercedes/BMw/whatever clearly *did* choose to focus on such worldly things.

By what logic does a person preach a counsel of unworldliness in dealing with matters of state, while living a life of utter worldliness when it comes to his own affairs?

[MD]

I second the comments regarding Romans 13 and Luke's gospel.

I might add one thing in response to the notion that all Christians must be pacifists. Certainly, some Christians are, and have been, pacifists; some even claim that a Christian must be a pacifist. This has never been a majority opinion, however, as far as I know.

Christianity as a whole has followed, as a historical matter, the "just war doctrine," which some misconstrue to mean that Christians may fight in self-defense. Actually, the Just War doctrine is based on the Christian duty of charity; that is, the duty of the able to protect and defend those within a society who cannot defend themselves, the children, the sick, the elderly, the poor and the dispossesed.

[California Conservative]

Excellent, Alexandra. God help us all.

[David]

Semanticleo comments: "...How can a christian, in good conscience, participate in, or promulgate war?...Is not pacificism a primary tenet of Christianity?..."

*sigh*

A typically subliterate product of modern education. The argument Semanticleo puts forth is specious, and if Semanticleo knows better, duplicitous.

Mixing classes and ignoring facts, Semanticleo. Talk to a Calvinist or a Jesuit, but bring along a translator who knows how to communicate with people DISeducated by modern public so-called education/colleges/universities.

You might start with Romans 13 and try to wrap your head around the concept that rulers are designated by God as His agents of wrath to weild the sword upon evildoers, for the protection of the law-abiding.

Islamic terrorists certainly qualify for classification as evildoers... unless one's head is shoved so far into a place where the sun never shines as to render one's perspective completely useless.

[Erm]

"Another leftie publication in the UK, The Spectator,"

Wow. How people can make fools out of themselves. The Spectator is Britain's most prominent quality conservative magazine. It's also the oldest continuously published magazine in the English speaking world.

[Adam Graham]

The Missouri Christian Religion thing is a myth, see here

[slowtrain]

Sorry guys,

The title of my posting was supposed to be "Vice Pays Homage to Virtue!"

As they say haste makes waste, I have found that out yet again.

[RaceBannon]

I am only 46 years old, but I remember a day when if a Christian stuck to Biblical values they were praised, not excoriated.

While I don't proclaim that Tony Blair is a strong Bible Believing Christian, I don't know, his comments are his own and what he said is right: God is the final arbiter of his actions in defending his country against terrorists.

Too many believe that Christianity is a pacifistic religion. It is not, it is one of those who wish peace and practice it, but were told to prepare for the battle ahead.

(Luke 22:36 KJV) Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

If Jesus didn't want us to gird ourselves up to stand up and act right when needed, the command to purchase self defense weapons given to His own followers is meaningless.

[slowtrain]

Hypocrisy pays homage to vice!

Someone once said that hypocrisy is the homage vice pays to virtue. Such is the notion of standing for something and yet not wanting it to come about. One cannot claim to want freedom for all people, yet hinder the efforts that will bring it about. How can anyone speak from both sides of the mouth—take refuge in the protective arms of good virtue, yet deny the essence of good virtue. It is akin to eating an apple and denying its existence or insisting that it is beef or something else. Such is the attitude of the extreme liberal left to Christianity and such can only be for no other reason except mischief or malice.

When I hear people castigate the idea of freedom for every person, regardless of place or position; I wonder what they would offer in its place. Those who engage in witch hunting to discredit George Bush and Tony Blair, by taking issue with their faith, as to cast their desire to see freedom come to all people, are blinded by their hatred and antagonism to Christianity. It is really not about Bush and Blair; it’s all about Christianity. But these protagonist of existentialism and antagonist of Christianity must remember that the very idea of freedom for all is a Christian virtue, a virtue founded on truth—another Christian virtue. “You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” Remember that? This is because it is the truth that makes one free.

It is in the truth that one is declared free or innocent, just as an accused person is declared free in the truth of his innocence, just as a person in bondage is set free in light of the truth of his humanity, and just as person who is afraid of the unknown is liberated by the knowledge of the none existence of the very thing he feared. “I have come that you may have life, and life more abundantly.” Remember that one too? This is because some has to bring the truth to those who lack freedom that they might then have freedom. Look at the Iraqi’s, they are learning things they never could have imagined, doing things they never knew they could do—choosing who will rule them and saying what they would like to say. That is freedom and someone had to bring it to them.

True freedom derives from truth itself, because true freedom can only be freedom in the truth. Indeed, there is no freedom without truth. True freedom is not found in doing what one likes, but in doing what one should. The former is illusory, superficial, and fails to recognize the whole truth about the essence of humanity. To that extent, Bush and Blair are doing what they should in Iraq.

No one, not even the most rabid liberals, who have become quite famous as antagonists of Christianity, can point to one thing that Jesus Christ ever said or did that is not to the benefit of all people. The problem the liberals have with Christians and Christianity is that they want and enjoy freedom, not the truth that underlies it. But freedom must have fidelity with truth, if it is not to become bondage. One may have the freedom to sniff heroin, but in the addiction that follows, one losses his freedom, ends up in bondage and quickly discovers that he never had the freedom he thought he had.

Obviously, the state of collective irrationality that the “left” has found itself is in keeping with the essential postmodernist principle—the rejection of the very idea that language actually refers to something or signifies an actual existing thing, and the belief that the act of speaking gives reality (meaning and substance) to things and ideas, and that language is not a pure description of reality, hence the spin, the lies, and more lies—essentially whoever shouts louder or longer, regardless of what is being said. This consciousness is of course founded on the profusely divergent ideas of multiculturalism. It is a war of words, and words have power—the power to guide or misguide, the power to set the mind and body free or take them captive. The power of life and death lies in the tongue, the Bible says.

Under the guise of tolerance, the over zealous liberals have clearly shown that they are anti-Christian. In fact, Christian bashing has become a favorite pastime of the enforcers of multiculturalism and the Political Correctness horse traders, hence the convenience of their attacks on Bush and Blair. It is quite clear that multiculturalism and political correctness have become tools for persecuting Christians in Western societies.

All through time, Christians have been taken advantage of, persecuted and pushed aside, because of the very essence of Christianity – love (even for their enemies), peace, forgiveness, and justice. The notion of Christians as wimps that would readily turn the other cheek repeatedly and endlessly to be slapped on, has led Christian haters everywhere to essentially bully Christians, expecting no consequence or retribution. In America, it is the ACLU, in Eastern Europe it is the Communists, in China it is the Communists, in India it is the Hindus, in the Middle East, most S.E. Asian countries and North Africa it is the Muslims.

In their growing disdain for Christians and apparent fear of Muslims, the left is catering to Muslims, by essentially promoting Islam by constantly making excuses for Islam, while vigorously deriding Christianity. Clearly the application of the constitutional injunction of separation of church and state has become covert attack on Christians.

In their unrestrained and almost maniacal zeal to get at Christians, the left in America and most Western societies have shown that they will go to any length to do so, even if it means dubiously promoting Islam and other religions. Their ill fixation on Christianity is nothing short of a suicidal tendency. It is indeed a perilous premise.

Malcolm Muggeridge, in The End of Christendom, wrote "A strange thing I have observed over many years in this business of news gathering and news presentation is that by some infallible process media people always manage to miss the most important thing. It’s almost as though there were some built-in propensity to do this. In moments of humility, I realize that if I had been a correspondent in the Holy Land at the time of our Lord’s ministry, I should almost certainly have spent my time knocking about with the entourage of Pontius Pilate, finding out what the Sanhedrin was up to, and lurking around Herod’s court with the hope of signing up Salome to write her memoirs exclusively. I regret that this is true. Ironically enough, as the dramatization of the public scene gains impetus, so we move farther and farther from the reality of things and become more and more preoccupied with fantasy".

[Semanticleo]

And with regard to the SD 'Rapist Rights' law and Alexandras brief mention of a "...ban on almost all abortions", State Sen Napoli describes a scenario which would allow abortion:

BILL NAPOLI: "A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life."

Is this the calling card christians who wish to evangelize, should use?

[Semanticleo]

This whole dispute seems superfluous.

How can a christian, in good conscience, participate in, or promulgate war?

Is not pacificism a primary tenet of Christianity?

Shouldn't THAT be what is debated here?

[North by Northwest]

Quite right Washington. The hypocrisy knows no end. The Independent article is really some piece of work. A perfectly reasonable statement is carefully distorted and twisted to suit the insatiable need to discredit Bush and Blair at every turn. Daily Kos just puts the nail in.

My personal favorite is the verbal contortion introducing the oh-so-taboo 'crusader'. Totally unrelated and out of context, yet there it is, ready for the soundbite-hungry to lap it up.

[Joseph Marshall]

Well, in this matter, your observations are undoubtedly just. Tony Blair is clearly awaiting God's justice, and for perfectly logical reasons given his Christian premises.

Awaiting God's justice is definitely not the same as anticipating its results and often the only face of Christianity the secular are willing to see is that of Pat Robertson. Pat, at least, pretty definitely anticipates what God is going to say about these matters.

We can probably leave it with Lincoln: "If the end proves me wrong then ten angels swearing I was right would make no difference."

[Washington]

Isn't it sickening how proclaiming that you are a Christian is cause for an immediate attack by the left...but burn an embassy in the name of Islam and you are expressing yourself.